Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer
According to the question, some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important that saving land for endangered animals. However, I do not agree with the statement, and I believe that saving land for the endangered animals is more important than the human needs for farming, housing, and industry. My position is base on two reasons.
First, endangered animals are the part of the nature, and their absence may disturb the ecosystem of the environment. In the ecosystem every living beings and non living beings are interconnected. If any of the element of the ecosystem is removed from this system, then the whole system will be affected. For example, in the world largest mangrove forest, the Royal Bengal Tiger is the top most predator animal. The number of the tiger is now declining. Deer are the main target of the tigers, and as the number of the tigers is declining, the number of the deer is also increasing. The deer live on grasses and herbs, so with the increased population of the deer the grassland will decrease in future. As a result of the small grassland, number of the deer and other herbivorous animal will then decrease. The example shows us that absence of the one animal in the forest affect the whole ecosystem of the forest and, thus, will affect the overall environment of the region. Hence, we should preserve land for the endangered animals.
Second, deforestation for the industrialization, housing, and farming is hampering the climate of the whole world. Global warming, melting of the polar ice, increasing the sea level are the result of the deforestation. Industries, housing, and farming are important for the economy of a country to fulfill the demand of the population. However, the world is not just for the human. Human cannot survive without other animal and plants. All the living things and nonliving things are inter-related. For a healthy world there should the be balance between the every materials in the earth. Land for the farming, housing, and industries are important, but land for the animals and plants is also important, so human need to save the land for the animals and plants for their own existence. In this case, human need to find a way to maintain the balance. For example we can reduce the birthrate, advance farming and housing technology, which need lower amount of land etc. Therefore, to save this world human needs to save land for the animals and plants, which include the endangered animals, also.
In conclusion, the issue mentioned on the prompt is a complex one, but for the obvious reasons I believe that saving land for the endangered animals is more important. Therefore, preserving land for the endangered animals is more important than the human needs for farming, housing, and industries.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 693, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...of the deer the grassland will decrease in future. As a result of the small grassland, nu...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 532, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...lated. For a healthy world there should the be balance between the every materials in ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1091, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
..., which include the endangered animals, also. In conclusion, the issue mentioned ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 15.1003584229 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 9.8082437276 122% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 13.8261648746 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.0286738351 63% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 43.0788530466 39% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 52.1666666667 81% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 8.0752688172 211% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2342.0 1977.66487455 118% => OK
No of words: 471.0 407.700716846 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97239915074 4.8611393121 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65859790218 4.48103885553 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69531048127 2.67179642975 101% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 212.727598566 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.430997876858 0.524837075471 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 724.5 618.680645161 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 3.08781362007 227% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 11.0 1.86738351254 589% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.94265232975 121% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.6003584229 126% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.1344086022 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.2422137876 48.9658058833 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.0769230769 100.406767564 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1153846154 20.6045352989 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 5.45110844103 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 11.8709677419 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.85842293907 104% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.88709677419 184% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.388363106715 0.236089414692 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109982249643 0.076458572812 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.124360001503 0.0737576698707 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.296053089425 0.150856017488 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.138699712106 0.0645574589148 215% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 11.7677419355 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 58.1214874552 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 10.1575268817 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.25 10.9000537634 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.01818996416 100% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 86.8835125448 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.002688172 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.0537634409 92% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.